Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
Court of Amsterdam
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store. The site was located just outside the agreed post-contractual area, ie just over 15 kilometers from the nearest Doctor Feelgood site.
In the first place, it was claimed that using the name Feelgood-store would be unlawful towards Doctor Feelgood, because the new name used was too similar to the old one. However, that claim was rejected in summary proceedings because the President of the court was of the opinion that there could be no risk of confusion among the relevant public. The President was of the opinion that the names Doctor Feelgood and Feelgood-store differ too much from each other to assume that there is a likelihood of confusion, taking into account that the part Feelgood is a descriptive, general and widely used term for services and products in the personal care category, just like, for example, the term wellness, terms that are difficult to protect.
It was also considered whether there had been any other form of impermissible competition. The President considers that Doctor Feelgood has opened a massage parlor without notifying Doctor Feelgood. However, that conduct is not in itself unlawful. The Feelgood store does not violate the post-contract non-competition clause, as its business is more than 15 kilometers from the nearest Doctor Feelgood branch. Now that, in the opinion of the President, the names differ too much, as said, the President does not arrive at establishing an unlawful act by the Feelgood store.
In the eyes of the President, however, the Feelgood store has pushed the boundaries of what is permissible. In franchise relationships, the parties are therefore advised to contractually agree on what exactly the non-competition clause consists of, including which expressions are and are not permitted after the franchise agreement has expired. Naturally, this also includes similar external expressions. However, if a franchisor wants more than has been precisely and precisely agreed upon, he must come from a good house to have the post-contract non-compete clause honored. The franchisee is not bound by more than strictly agreed, if at all. In the case of franchise relations, the circumstances may mean that the non-competition clause is set aside in whole or in part.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The benchmark for franchise forecasts – dated 29 May 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 19 March 2019, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:1037, listed the case law of the Supreme Court on prognosis in franchising.
Franchise arbitration: too high a threshold? – mr. M. Munnik
When entering into an agreement, it is possible for the parties - contrary to the law - to designate a competent court. This also applies to the franchise agreement. Of this possibility
Franchise appeal for error due to incorrect forecasts and lack of support rejected – dated April 25, 2019 – mr. K. Bastian
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:697) on the question whether the mere fact that forecasts did not materialize justifies the conclusion that the franchisee has been shortchanged...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Increasing protection against recruiting franchisees” – dated 2 April 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
It is becoming increasingly apparent that recruited franchisees can be protected on the basis of the Acquisition Fraud Act.
The Franchise Association and Franchise Binding – Contracting 2019, No. 1
A contribution on common provisions in franchise agreements that require a franchisee to be a member of a franchisee's association.
Deception in recruiting a franchisee?
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.